I watch a lot of MMA - a lot of MMA - and I have long had one burning question; how much of a difference in reach constitutes a meaningful advantage?
Jon Jones for instance has an 84’ which is usually 4-10 inches longer than his opponents’. I’ve seen fights where he was in punching range while his opponent was barely in kicking range. But he is the exception.
Mostly reach only differs a couple or three inches between fighters.
So I ask those of involved in the striking arts; at what point does a longer reach confer a meaningful advantage?
The only combat sport I ever participated in was a few boxing classes and sparring with headgear but in my brief experience, I’d rather fight someone with a reach advantage vs a hitting power advantage. However I’d imagine that in “real” boxing the reach advantage would be huge for points unless you plan on Tyson-ing everyone.
One of the advantages of reach is that it usually comes hand-in-hand with an increase in mass, so even if you’re light and fast enough to dodge past the bigger guy’s punch and land one, you’re hitting a bigger guy who can absorb more of a shot.
In SCA heavy combat (rattan swords, aluminum shields and medieval-ish armor), some of the best fighters prefer a shorter sword because they can maneuver it faster and more precisely; they have to be close enough to block with the shield anyway, so having a sword much longer than that doesn’t actually help much.
Thing is that a guy with a longer reach can avoid getting hit by the heavier hitter. Using Jon Jones as an example I’ve seen him throw knees (very short range technique) when his opponent wasn’t even in punching range. If buddy can’t reach you then it doesn’t matter if he’s Wreckit Ralph - the punches do nothing but wear out the guy who threw them if they don’t land.
I don’t know how the SCA does things in terms of breaking up weight classes but in MMA, Boxing, K1 (mostly ) etc the fighters are broken up by weight. Jon Jones - I keep using him because he has an extreme reach - fights at 205 lbs but likely walks around at about 240-250. So do his opponents.
Jones is long and lean (think short NBA) but others in his weight class are shorter but much more heavily built. There are guys in the Light Heavyweight division that could likely drop Jones with one clean shot - if they could reach him. But Jones knees at punching range for most fighters, punches at close to kicking range and kicks at pistol range. Most fighters have to try to get inside on him to have a chance and he’s good enough that few ever do and they don’t do it often.
So, to rephrase the question somewhat, if all things other are equal (skill, experience and such) at what point does reach become a meaningful advantage in non-weaponized combat sports?
IMO, as a martial artist, recreational sparrer, and MMA watcher, reach is very important in traditional standup boxing or in non-submission types of ring fighting like kickboxing, muay tai, sport taekwando, etc. Any sport (keyword: sport) where success is preferentially given to landing a punch or kick to other techniques, either by means of its physical damage or by means of scored points or 3rd-party judging, is going to favor the fighter who can better control the range at which his punches land with greater frequency than his opponent’s.
Take the classic fantasy Ali vs Tyson comparison. Ali ruled the ring in his time with a long reach that, given the game theory of boxing, was ideal for scoring points, landing the most punches, winning rounds, and denying his opponent the same. Ali was a natural winner in that context.
Tyson’s game ultimately failed when he couldn’t just take entry punches, wade in, and KO with overwhelming power. He was a victim of reach in this context since, not possessing the asset, had to build a game that gave him a disadvantage within the boxing rule system.
The lines blur when MMA-type in-fighting, holds, throws, and submission rules are added to the sport. IMO, in these cases, reach as a pure measure of success isn’t significant, but it can be an effective asset to build a fight game around for those that possess a longer reach. I much prefer MMA in this case, since it seems to foster much greater physical and technique variability in the fighter population and therefore makes for more interesting analysis and outcomes.
They don’t. Women who weigh 100 pounds, soaking wet with rocks in their pockets, go up against guys who weigh 350 pounds. As a general rule, women don’t do as well because they are taught very poorly, and the instruction they do get is usually geared towards a guy’s physiology, which tends not to work for women. However, a significant number of the best fighters are shorter, light, fast men.
That said, the greatest fear small people have in SCA combat is that one of those thunder lizards will fall on them in full plate. Hell, I weighed 190 pounds when I was fighting, and I didn’t want that.
I can see where I mightn’t have been clear enough. To clarify; does reach become a meaningful advantage when the difference is one inch, three, six? How much of a difference in reach constitutes a meaningful advantage for a fighter?
) etc the fighters are broken up by weight. Jon Jones - I keep using him because he has an extreme reach - fights at 205 lbs but likely walks around at about 240-250. So do his opponents.